-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Do not complain about the internal of unique_ptr. Do not complain about transient std::tuple. #13900
Conversation
Starting build on |
Build failed on ROOT-ubuntu2204/nortcxxmod. Failing tests:
|
Build failed on ROOT-performance-centos8-multicore/soversion. Errors:
Failing tests:
And 1 more |
Test Results 12 files 12 suites 2d 15h 13m 12s ⏱️ Results for commit 2f2c69e. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Build failed on windows10/default. Failing tests:
|
Build failed on mac12arm/cxx20. Errors:
Failing tests:
And 1 more |
Build failed on ROOT-ubuntu2004/python3. Failing tests:
|
@phsft-bot build just on ROOT-ubuntu2204/nortcxxmod |
Starting build on |
Build failed on ROOT-ubuntu2204/nortcxxmod. Failing tests:
|
Starting build on |
Build failed on ROOT-ubuntu2204/nortcxxmod. Failing tests: |
Build failed on ROOT-performance-centos8-multicore/soversion. Failing tests:
|
Build failed on ROOT-ubuntu2004/python3. Failing tests: |
Build failed on windows10/default. Errors:
And 12 more |
Build failed on mac12arm/cxx20. Failing tests: |
@phsft-bot build |
Starting build on |
Build failed on windows10/default. Errors:
And 12 more |
Build failed on ROOT-performance-centos8-multicore/soversion. Failing tests: |
Build failed on mac12arm/cxx20. Failing tests: |
@phsft-bot build |
Starting build on |
Build failed on ROOT-performance-centos8-multicore/soversion. Failing tests: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for this huge amount of work! I have some comments for discussion.
Also, I feel like before merging the PR the list of commits should be shrunk by some margin, not sure yet about the correct amount though.
io/rootpcm/src/rootclingIO.cxx
Outdated
// TODO: Is it not clear what situation we are checking for by checking if | ||
// the unique_ptr class has any data members. | ||
clm->BuildRealData(nullptr, true); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think this comment is clear if read out of context from this PR. It also makes me doubt, why are we introducing all this new logic if we don't know which situation it is addressing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not new logic (it was added as part of the original support for unique pointer 6f5934a) The comment is pondering why the code has been here for a while. The change made is to set it to ignore warning and errors related to the schema.
We need to keep only the strictest access information between the member and its type.
This addresses in part root-project#13574
//______________________________________________________________________________ // Return true if the DeclContext is representing an entity reacheable from the // global namespace bool IsCtxtReacheable(const clang::DeclContext &ctxt); //______________________________________________________________________________ // Return true if the decl is representing an entity reacheable from the // global namespace bool IsDeclReacheable(const clang::TagDecl &decl);
…ject code generation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe the changes look good overall, before merging it would be nice to apply the clang-format suggestions.
Thanks again for this large effort!
This fixes #13574
This prevents complains about the internals of
unique_ptr
when we are just investigating its suitability for streaming.Also do not complains about a transient
std::tuple
even if we can not stream it (for example if one of component is a private entity).Test at root-project/roottest#1030